Mr M Morgan Lloyd v JFG Telemetry Ltd T/a KDG Telemetry and others: 1400518/2019
JUDGMENT
The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages for period of 1988- 2013 is struck out.REASONS
[1]By an order dated 21 June 2019 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the complaint of wages should not be struck out because The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the same is limited to deductions made in the period of two years prior to the presentation of his claim form[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The complaint of wages is therefore struck out.[3]The claimant’s remaining claim(s) remains listed for hearing on 20th September 2019. _____________________________ Employment Judge Livesey 8 August 2019[1]The claim for unfair dismissal against the first Respondent, JFG Telemetry Limited is well founded.[2]The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against the first Respondent, JFG Telemetry, is well founded.[3]The first Respondent, JFG Telemetry, failed to provide the Claimant with an itemized pay statement contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[4]The Claimant was not entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal from the first Respondent, JFG Telemetry, because the circumstances of his dismissal are not covered by s92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[5]The Claimant was not employed by nor a worker of the second Respondent JFG Farming Limited.[6]The claim of breach of contract was withdrawn, but not dismissed, pursuant to rule 52 of schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Case No: 1400518/2019 Employment Judge Teresa Hay _____________________________ Date 25 August 2023[1]The claim for unfair dismissal against the first Respondent, JFG Telemetry Limited is well founded. Mr Morgan-Lloyd was unfairly dismissed by them.[2]The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the award payable to the claimant by 10 % in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[3]This means the respondent did not follow guidance which was available to it and so Mr Morgan-Lloyd will receive an addition to his award for unfair dismissal. This is known as an “uplift”.[4]The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums:(a) A basic award of £14423.08 (based on 20 x 1.5 of a weeks pay of £480.77)(b) A compensatory award of £0.00.(c) An uplift to the award of £1442.30 (10% of the basic award of £14423.08) Note that these are the sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts made by the Tribunal have been applied. Case No: 1400518/2019[5]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 2006 to December 2018. The period for which the Claimant can be awarded monies relating to such unauthorised deductions is limited by s24A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to the period of 2 years prior to the presentation of the claim.[6]This means the respondent did not pay the claimant all the wages he was owed. The respondent will now have to pay some of those wages to the claimant. The period for which the Tribunal can order the respondent to pay those wages is limited by the Employment Rights Act.[7]The respondent shall pay the claimant £36300.07, which is the gross sum deducted between February 2017 and December 2018. This is calculated upon a weeks wages due in that period of £480.77 of which £99.99 was received by the claimant as accommodation and other expenditure, leaving £380.77 per week deducted each week for a period of 22 months.[8]The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance.[9]When the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. There are no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable.[10]This means that because the respondent failed to give the claimant a contract of employment, which as an employer the respondent was legally required to do, the claimant will be awarded an additional sum.[11]Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 states that the amount which may be awarded to a claimant under that section is either 2 weeks or 4 weeks pay and does not allow for an award equal to three weeks pay. The Tribunal will reconsider the amount to be awarded pursuant to rule 73 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Schedule 1 after the parties have had an opportunity to make representations.[12]The judgment on remedy for unauthorised deductions relating to holiday pay has been reserved.